1 / 5

Andrew B. Sawers, MSPO, CPO; Brian J. Hafner, PhD

Outcomes associated with the use of microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees among individuals with unilateral transfemoral limb loss: A systematic review. Andrew B. Sawers, MSPO, CPO; Brian J. Hafner, PhD. Aim

bert
Download Presentation

Andrew B. Sawers, MSPO, CPO; Brian J. Hafner, PhD

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Outcomes associated with the use of microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees among individuals with unilateral transfemoral limb loss: A systematic review Andrew B. Sawers, MSPO, CPO; Brian J. Hafner, PhD

  2. Aim • Systematically review outcomes associated with use of microprocessor-controlled knees (MPKs) and non-microprocessor-controlled knees (NMPKs) among individuals with transfemoral limb loss. • Relevance • MPKs are alternative to NMPKs to address challenges facing individuals with lower-limb loss. • Scientific literature comparing MPKs and NMPKs exists but has yet to be critically appraised.

  3. Method • Searched biomedical databases. • Identified 241 publications • Reviewed 27 that met inclusion and exclusion criteria for methodological quality and content. • Developed 28 empirical evidence statements (EESs) in 9 outcome categories: metabolic energy expenditure, activity, cognitive demand, gait mechanics, environmental obstacle negotiation, safety, preference and satisfaction, economics, health, quality of life.

  4. Results • Level of evidence supporting these EESs varied because of quantity, quality, and consistency of results. • EESs supported by moderate level of evidence that noted significant differences between MPKs and NMPKs were derived in 5 of 9 outcome categories.

  5. Conclusion • Literature review results suggest that: • Evidence exists to inform clinical practice. • Additional research is needed to confirm existing evidence and better understand outcomes associated with use of MPKs and NMPKs.

More Related